Zionists Push for Multi-National Firing Squad Aimed at Internet ‘Hate Speech’
European Commission, Major IT Companies, Adopt 'Code of Conduct' Regulating Social Media ContentThe European Commission has reached an agreement with four major Internet tech companies on the terms of a “code of conduct” governing “illegal hate speech” on social media platforms. The companies are Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft.
The announcement was made May 31 and comes just four months after a high-ranking Israeli official called for an “international coalition” to force social media outlets to eliminate “hate” or “incitement” in user posts and threatening legal action against those who fail to comply.
“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online,” says the European Commission’s formal announcement. “This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”
“Hateful conduct has no place on Twitter and we will continue to tackle this issue head on alongside our partners in industry and civil society,” said Karen White, Twitter’s Head of Public Policy for Europe.
“We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate,” she added.
The Code of Conduct adopts the definition of hate speech incorporated into a Framework Decision on racism that had been previously adopted in 2008. Under that framework, “public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin” would be considered a criminal offense, as would “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes…when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred” against such a group or individual.
It is impossible to glean from the EC press release what part Israel or its European lobbies may have played in advocating for the new measures, but we do know that at a cabinet meeting in January, Gilad Erdan, Israeli Public Security Minister, discussed plans to form an “international legal coalition” of countries with the objective of pressuring social media companies to remove “incitement” from their platforms.
Erdan’s views on the matter are discussed in a January 19, 2016 Times of Israel article that even names three of the four companies–Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube–who signed on to the European Commission’s code of conduct this week. The coalition would “take action against social media platforms if they do not proactively prevent the use of their systems to upload videos, songs, photos, and other content that inspire would-be terrorists to pick up knives, guns, rocks, and other weapons to attack Israelis,” says the report.
Apparently under the scheme envisioned by Erdan, one does not actually need to advocate an act of violence to be guilty of an offense; one might simply post a song, video or photo that might conceivably “inspire” someone else. The ultimate goal would be “developing legislation in Israel and abroad to prosecute social media platforms for failing to keep calls for violence and hateful materials off their platforms,” as the article puts it.
The Internet companies “make millions but claim they are not responsible for content, and that they only provide a platform,” commented an Erdan spokesperson quoted in the story. “That is not going to wash. We are planning to put a stop to this irresponsibility, and we are going to do it as part of an international coalition that has had enough of this behavior as well.”
The spokesperson described unnamed European countries as being “very interested in this idea,” and went on to add: “The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are. Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty.”
The article also includes links to material allegedly posted by Hamas officials or individual Palestinian activists, including an anatomical chart designed to show which parts of the body to aim for in order to fatally stab someone, but as one commenter here notes, postings of this nature are “tiny in comparison to the volume of material going up on the Internet, and there are already more than sufficient methods in place to deal with such incidents and get them removed.”
That would seem to be the case judging by the sheer number of reports we hear of Facebook pages getting deleted or videos being pulled from YouTube. However, a study published by a French Jewish group, the UEJF, or Jewish Students Union of France, alleges that more than 90 percent of posts they viewed as objectionable on Twitter and YouTube remained online an average of 15 days after requests for removal had been filed. Facebook is said to have been somewhat more obliging to the demands, deleting a third of the posts.
According to Bloomberg, the study was conducted by UEJF in conjunction with two other groups, SOS Racisme and SOS Homophobie, and a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook and Google was filed in a Paris court earlier this month.
According to the report, the content still online includes a comment on Facebook saying that “homosexuals are disgusting;” a YouTube video that uses a derogatory term for black people and said “go back home you apes;” and a Twitter post that applauded the Brussels attacks and stated “Death to the Jews.”Conveniently, the terror attacks in Europe seem to be providing a good bit of the justification for the measures. The attacks are cited in both the Times of Israel report and the European Commission’s press release as well.
“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech,” said Vera Jourová, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality. “Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred.”
“While we are perhaps the biggest sufferers of Arab incitement, we are not the only ones,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Israel Law Center. “The Europeans, after all, have in recent years been given devastating tastes of what that incitement can lead to — in the terror attacks in Marseille, Paris, Toulouse; in the stream of Muslims in Sweden identifying with IS, and many other incidents and attacks, large and small.”
The Times of Israel article notes that Israel already has on its books “the legislation needed to prosecute Facebook and other social media sites for anti-Semitic content,” but as Darshan-Leitner points out the big companies could simply cut off services to the Jewish state should it attempt enforcement on its on.
“That is why Erdan is seeking to build this international coalition. There’s safety in numbers; if Facebook et al. know they are going to have to face the music in a dozen countries, they will be much more amenable to being proactive on this matter than if they were just contending with Israel.”
The code of conduct agreed to this week provides a mechanism of “self-enforcement,” as it were, under which the companies will be “taking the lead” insofar as reviewing notifications of material deemed objectionable–an exercise that in all likelihood will require the hiring of additional employees–and deleting those which presumably cross the line. Just exactly where “the line” will be seems to be rather subjective, however.
For now this determination is left to the companies–surely a disappointment to the hardliners in Israel–but that could change. A few more terrorist attacks in Europe and we could well see the emergence of an EU-wide censorship regime imposed on social media, a regime whose regulations pro-Israel lobbies likely would have a large hand in crafting.
This could of course supply a motive for a false flag attack–a tactic Israel has not been averse to using in the past.
Netanyahu Government: Reviving the “Greater Israel” Scheme
Israel’s Maariv newspaper has revealed that the government of the Zionist state is planning to drop a political bombshell in the coming weeks by presenting a bill in the Knesset (parliament) calling for the annexation of land occupied since 1967. It is likely to have the support of the majority of Knesset members. The newspaper added that the right wing has chosen this time for the move ahead of the US presidential election; America, it is believed, will be too preoccupied to care about what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Preliminary talks about a first stage have been held, claimed Maariv; Israel would annex all Area C land — which includes 60 per cent of the occupied West Bank —where more than 400,000 illegal Jewish settlers live alongside tens of thousands of Palestinians. Under the proposal, Israel will offer residents Israeli identity while imposing its curricula in schools.
According to far-right Justice Minister Ayalet Shaked, Israel must impose Israeli law in the West Bank, which means in practical terms that the occupied Palestinian territories would come under full Israeli control.
Furthermore, Deputy Defence Minister Eli Ben-Dahan has demanded “the annexation of the West Bank because the Arab and regional situation is appropriate for this step.” Naftali Bennett, the leader of the extreme right-wing Jewish Home Party, which is part of the government coalition, said that, “It is better for Israel to begin annexing Area C.”
These positions and statements should not be taken lightly, because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is working on the basis that the West Bank is “liberated land” and formal annexation is only a matter of time.
It was in the historic election in 1977 that the Israeli right-wing won a majority in the Knesset for the first time. The government was led by Menachem Begin, a student of Revisionist Zionist thinker Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who authored the iron wall theory. This set out that the indigenous people of the country would not accept what the Israeli occupation authorities want, what they are exposed to or solutions imposed by the occupation; and that Israel will go through a continuous process of change towards becoming a more and more Jewish, right-wing, settler-based and racist state.
This trend has deepened dramatically since Netanyahu’s return to government in 2009 when Israel’s so-called “third phase” began. The right-wing became the mainstream, dominating power in government and society. At the same time, the influence of Knesset members, parties and groups wanting to find a solution that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel faded to the point that the Labour Party abandoned this option. Instead, it adopted unanimously a plan put forward by the country’s President, Chaim Herzog. The plan was based on a unilateral solution that calls for formal separation of the areas populated by Palestinians in order to protect Israel as a Jewish state, and not to expose it to the risk of becoming a bi-national state.
There are a series of changes taking place in Israel where secular and liberal characteristics have all but disappeared, while the religious right-wing has become more prominent. These changes have been made through the adoption of laws and policies, and by imposing facts on the ground that make changing this reality very difficult. If, for example, we look at the state’s relations with the Palestinians, we find that voices calling for their deportation are increasing; these are the voices of people in senior positions in the government, army, security services and Knesset, as well as various state institutions. Also, the Israeli government moved from conflict management and the creation of facts on the ground that can help Israel to impose its unilateral solution when negotiating “final status” issues, to simply imposing that unilateral solution. Thus, the central part of the Israeli government and the opposition basically gave up any semblance of agreement on the establishment of a Palestinian state to the extent that they refuse even to countenance it.
The Israeli position became such that the government refused to talk with the Palestinians unless the latter agreed in advance to specific conditions. These included recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” for all Jewish people all over the world, and for Israel’s security to be the main, and perhaps only, frame of reference for Palestinian-Israeli relations now and in the future. Israel also insists on the presence of its occupation forces in strategic locations within the Palestinian state after its establishment, and the granting of absolute freedom of movement for them all over the “Promised Land”.
It is within this context that the number of illegal Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank has reached more than 700,000. Israel is working at an accelerated pace to increase this to one million within a few years.
We can also talk about Israel’s keenness to separate the West Bank from the Gaza Strip and doing all it can to make it a permanent political and physical separation. It is doing this by stripping the Palestinian Authority of its power, to such an extent that, as President Mahmoud Abbas has said repeatedly, the PA is an authority without authority, in spite of all the concessions that he and his ministers have made. The PA continues to be committed to the terms of the Oslo Accords; it accepts the 2003 international road map; and it has made unilateral commitments while Israel shows no commitment at all. From this position, we can understand why the Israeli government refused the offer made by the PA to stop threatening to implement decisions of the Palestinian Central Council, including an end to security coordination with the Israelis, in exchange for Israel’s commitment not to enter Area A. The authority suggested that this could begin with Ramallah and Jericho first, and if that works out, whereby Palestinian security forces would carry out their job in a manner that relieves the occupation from storming into these areas, then the experience could be spread to the rest of the occupied territories. The Netanyahu government was quick to reject any suggestion that would restrict the freedom of the occupation army to move across any area at will; this freedom is sacred for Israel, despite it paying tribute to the achievements of the Palestinian security services.
The question now is whether it would be possible to continue with the same policy that was used during negotiations, even though it was an illusion, and Israel is now becoming more vicious and refuses to partake in any negotiations whatsoever. It continues to impose its own solutions on the ground, stating clearly what it intends to do as it takes advantage of developments in the Arab region (where the Iranian threat has more priority than anything else) and around the world, which it believes have improved its strategic position.
Israel thinks that it has a great opportunity to achieve the still unfulfilled goals of the Zionist movement: the establishment of Israel on the whole of historic Palestine and beyond; in short, to revive the “Greater Israel” scheme from the Nile to the Euphrates.
The Zionist state of Israel is relying on the deteriorating Arab situation and the decline of the Palestinian national cause, which is weak, self-destructive and disoriented. The Palestinian leadership is still going round in circles reproducing the same old options without having enough courage to adopt anything new. Both of the main factions are just hanging around and waiting; the others are too small, weak and fragmented to do anything constructive.
Despite all of the above, the path to achieving “Greater Israel” is not smooth. The Palestinians, despite all that they suffer from, are still sticking to their cause, their rights and their presence on their land, and they continue to resist with all available forms of popular and armed resistance. They have also encouraged an international boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel which threatens it strategically, and they have UN recognition of Palestine as a state. They have since joined a number of international institutions, notably the International Criminal Court. Most importantly, the Palestinians started a new intifada in October fuelled by individuals with no formal leadership, factions, the PLO or the PA; this is reminding the Israelis that the Palestinians are still there, that resistance continues one generation after the other, and that this racist, colonial-settler occupation cannot continue to be quiet, profitable and permanent.
Although there are elements of strength and a suitable environment for the revival of “Greater Israel” it has some weaknesses. If the Palestinians could learn how best to utilise them, they would be successful. Some of the weak points include Israel being an enemy to itself, proposing a project that has no future as it raises discontent and resentment across the globe, prompting criticism even from its trusted allies, like the United States, Britain, Germany and France.
In order to defeat hostile schemes, the Palestinians need a vision, a national institution, a leadership that is up to the challenges and risks and able to employ opportunities; they need an effective political hierarchy and a strategy for the struggle that can achieve the maximum in each stage. They can then move on to achieve more and more until they realise the humanitarian, democratic and historical solution on the ruins of the racist, colonial-settler, Zionist project.
America Is Completely Owned &
Ruled by Jews
Members in US politics who hold dual US/Israeli citizenship:
Past and Present:1.Attorney General – Michael Mukasey
2. Head of Homeland Security – Michael Chertoff
3. Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle
4. Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) – Paul Wolfowitz
5. Under Secretary of Defense – Douglas Feith
6. National Security Council Advisor – Elliott Abrams
7. Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff (Former) – “Scooter” Libby
8. White House Deputy Chief of Staff – Joshua Bolten
9. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – Marc Grossman
10. Director of Policy Planning at the State Department – Richard Haass
11. U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) – Robert Zoellick
12. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – James Schlesinger
13. UN Representative (Former) – John Bolton
14. Under Secretary for Arms Control – David Wurmser
15. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Eliot Cohen
16. Senior Advisor to the President – Steve Goldsmith
17. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Christopher Gersten
18. Assistant Secretary of State – Lincoln Bloomfield
19. Deputy Assistant to the President – Jay Lefkowitz
20. White House Political Director – Ken Melman
21. National Security Study Group – Edward Luttwak
22. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Kenneth Adelman
23. Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) – Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
24. National Security Council Advisor – Robert Satloff
25. President Export-Import Bank U.S. – Mel Sembler
26. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families – Christopher Gersten
27. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs – Mark Weinberger
28. White House Speechwriter – David Frum
29. White House Spokesman (Former) – Ari Fleischer
30. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Henry Kissinger
31. Deputy Secretary of Commerce – Samuel Bodman
32. Under Secretary of State for Management – Bonnie Cohen
33. Director of Foreign Service Institute – Ruth Davis
Current members as best I could find:
•Senator Barbara Boxer (California)
•Senator Benjamin Cardin (Maryland)
•Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
•Senator Al Franken (Minnesota)
•Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
•Senator Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
•Senator Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey)
•Senator Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) (Independent)
•Senator Carl Levin (Michigan)
•Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont) (Independent)
•Senator Charles Schumer (New York)
•Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon)
House of Representatives:
•Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)
•Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)
•Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)
•Representative Howard Berman (California)
•Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)
•Representative Susan Davis (California)
•Representative Eliot Engel (New York)
•Representative Bob Filner (California)
•Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts)
•Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)
•Representative Alan Grayson (Florida)
•Representative Jane Harman (California)
•Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)
•Representative Steve Israel (New York)
•Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)
•Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)
•Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)
•Representative Nita Lowey (New York)
•Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)
•Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)
•Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)
•Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
•Representative Adam Schiff (California)
•Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)
•Representative Brad Sherman (California)
•Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)
•Representative Henry Waxman (California)
•Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)
•Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)
- See more at: http://realitieswatch.com/america-is-completely-owned-ruled-by-jews/#sthash.kdICSyM7.dpuf